07.12.2012 Views

AAHS ASPN ASRM - 2013 Annual Meeting - American Association ...

AAHS ASPN ASRM - 2013 Annual Meeting - American Association ...

AAHS ASPN ASRM - 2013 Annual Meeting - American Association ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Nerve Fiber and Motor Neuron Count Variation with Time After Nerve Injury<br />

Institution where the work was prepared: Washington University, Saint Louis, MO, USA<br />

Ida K. Fox, MD; Daniel A. Hunter; Susan E. Mackinnon; Washington University College of Medicine<br />

Purpose:<br />

The regeneration and subsequent remodeling of peripheral nerves remains a poorly understood process. After transection and repair or interposition grafting,<br />

the distal number of nerve fibers has been shown to change with time. The goal of this study was to assess both changes in the number of nerve fibers distal<br />

to the repair and the corresponding number of retrograde labeled motor neuron cell bodies detected<br />

Methods:<br />

Lewis rat sciatic nerve underwent either transection and repair or interposition grafting of isologous sciatic nerve. Data was collected at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12 and 24<br />

months post-procedure. To assess histomorphometric differences, peripheral nerve tissue distal to the repair or distal to the graft was collected. To quantify<br />

motor neuron regeneration, retrograde tracer was applied distal to repair site or interposed graft. Lumbar spinal cord ventral horn tissue was collected and the<br />

number of retrograde-labeled cell bodies in the ventral horn was counted.<br />

Results:<br />

Preliminary histomorphometric data shows augmentation then diminution in the number of distal nerve fibers with time. Overall, the transection and repair groups<br />

have more numerous distal fibers compared to the grafted group—this held true for all times points. The number of retrograde labeled motor neuron cell bodies<br />

showed a similar pattern of increase then decrease, however, the total numbers did not vary significantly between the two groups at the later times points.<br />

Conclusion:<br />

In studying nerve regeneration in the rodent model, the timing of outcomes assessment and nerve harvest is crucial. There is much to be learned about the<br />

regeneration of peripheral nerves, especially in regard to motor regeneration. This work serve as the basis for further investigation of motor regeneration distal<br />

to transection or graft interposition-requiring injury.<br />

Use of Skin-Derived Stem Cells to Promote Peripheral Nerve Regeneration and Recovery from Chronic<br />

Denervation<br />

Institution where the work was prepared: University of Calgary, Hotchkiss Brain Institute, Calgary, AB, Canada<br />

Sarah K. Walsh, BSc1; J. Biernaskie2; F. Miller2; Raj Midha, MD, MSc1; (1)University of Calgary, (2)University of Toronto<br />

Easily accessible sources for stem cell transplantation from skin dermis (termed skin-derived precursors, or SKPs) have been isolated from embryonic and adult<br />

murine skin (Toma et al., Nature Cell Biol, 2001) and have the ability to differentiate in vitro to neural crest cell types, including those with characteristics of<br />

peripheral neurons and Schwann cells. Our recent work (McKenzie et al., J. Neurosci., 2006) showed that naïve SKPs or those differentiated toward a Schwann<br />

cell-like phenotype (SKP-SCs) were able to survive and indeed myelinate regenerating axons in the crush-injured mouse sciatic nerve. In our ongoing study, we<br />

are exploring the ability of SKPs to remain viable and differentiate within a chronically denervated nerve in order to ascertain their role in promoting nerve<br />

regeneration. To this end, the sciatic nerves of CD-1 mice were transected and capped for 8 weeks to prevent reinnervation of the distal stump, creating a situation<br />

of chronic denervation. Nerves were then repaired and SKPs or SKP-SCs (generated from GFP +ve mice according to Toma et al., 2001) were injected<br />

into the subepineurium distal to the transection. Immunohistochemistry and confocal microscopy 4-12 weeks following transplantation is expected to reveal<br />

survival and differentiation of both naïve and differentiated SKPs, represented as co-localization of GFP fluorescence and Schwann cell makers. Additionally,<br />

we expect to observe improved regeneration outcomes when compared to diluent controls. This study also examined the possibility of seeding synthetic guidance<br />

chambers with SKPs as a method of delivering a source of Schwann cells to nerve gaps often found in chronic denervation. Preliminary work in vitro<br />

shows that SKPs cultured within the lumen of chitosan tubes attach evenly to the walls and display morphology and protein expression consistent with that<br />

of Schwann cells. When SKP-seeded tubes are used to bridge a 5 mm gap in the mouse sciatic nerve, we expect that axonal regeneration through the tubes<br />

will be comparable to Schwann cell-seeded tubes, and significantly improved over empty conduits alone. We therefore conclude that SKPs represent an accessible,<br />

autologous source of stem cells for transplantation therapies that have potential to myelinate regenerating axons and improve regeneration outcomes in<br />

a chronic nerve denervation scenario.<br />

Collagen Nerve Protectors in Rat Sciatic Nerve Repair: A Functional and Mechanical Analysis<br />

Institution where the work was prepared: Columbia University Medical Center, Department of Ortho. Surgery, New York, NY, USA<br />

Austin G. Hayes, BS; Charles M. Jobin, MD; Yelena Akelina, DVM; Melvin P. Rosenwasser, MD; Columbia University Medical Center<br />

Purpose:<br />

Peripheral nerve repair is often complicated by connective tissue proliferation, formation of perineural adhesions, and inhibition of gliding with subsequent<br />

nerve dysfunction. The use of bio-absorbable protective wraps may improve the functional outcomes of these repairs by inhibiting adhesions. Perineural scar<br />

and nerve tethering can be mechanically tested by stretching devices. This study analyzed the motor and sensory recovery and mechanical stiffness in transected<br />

rat sciatic nerves repaired with and without tubular collagen nerve protectors.<br />

Methods:<br />

Thirty Sprague-Dawley rats underwent unilateral sharp sciatic nerve transection and repair with four epineurial sutures and were randomly treated with or without<br />

a circumferential collagen nerve protector, NeuraWrapTM. After ten weeks of healing, in vivo motor and sensory recovery was tested with extensor postural<br />

thrust, latency of limb withdrawal from noxious (56C hotplate) stimuli, and walking track analysis with calculation of sciatic functional index (SFI). Rats were<br />

then sacrificed and their sciatic nerves were stretched in situ with an Instron microtesting device at a rate of 20mm/min until failure. Force distraction curves<br />

were plotted and the stiffness and maximum load were calculated. As a final measure of muscle reinnervation, the percentage of gastrocnemius muscle weight<br />

lost between repaired and unoperated limbs was compared.<br />

Results:<br />

Of the thirty rats, two were sacrificed prior to testing, one due to infection (unwrapped), while another was lost during housing (wrapped). Significant differences existed<br />

between repaired and uninjured nerves in nearly all measures. Functional recovery of repaired nerves was not significantly different between non-wrapped and<br />

wrapped nerves as measured by percentage extensor thrust deficit (82%, 86%), limb withdrawal time (4.2sec, 3.5sec), SFI (-57, -60), or percentage of gastrocnemius<br />

weight lost (45%, 47%). Mechanical testing also found no significant differences between non-wrapped and wrapped nerves in stiffness (0.55+/-0.14N-mm, 0.49+/-<br />

0.13N-mm) and maximum load (2.97N, 2.70N). Repaired nerves, regardless of wrapping, were 1.4-fold stiffer than uninjured nerves (0.37+/-0.13N-mm) (p

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!